Why in the world did Agent Jacks think it was a good move to tell
Brennan that her mother was cheating on him?
She couldn't predict what
Brennan would do with that information, but she sure seemed confident
that she was in control. It's doubtful she expected him to get liquored
up, break into Carly's house, and burst into her boudoir like an enraged gorilla. Not understanding the difference between knowing and guessing
is bad spycraft. So is stupidly running all over town, pretending to be
a ditzy sorority girl, asking out of the blue questions about someone
she suspects might be in league with the enemy. That ditzy sorority girl
act isn't really an act, is it.
Why in the world did Britt Westbourne think it was a good idea to tell
Fake Nathan that Joss is a WSB agent? Why out Agent Jacks to the enemy
camp, then follow it up with, "but you can't tell anyone!" Britt and
Joss: both members of the Alpha Kappa D'oh sorority.
How can Liesl Obrecht not know that Nathan had a twin? *Does* she know,
or will they invent some cockamamie tale to explain why she doesn't?
Cesar and the Stolen Fetus? Cesar and the Secret Clone? Cesar and the
Latex Nathan Mask?
Kaitlin <above.stairs@bobbie's.diner.INVALID> wrote:
How can Liesl Obrecht not know that Nathan had a twin? *Does* she know,
or will they invent some cockamamie tale to explain why she doesn't?
I am making assumption with this response.
Liesl was intimate with Faison at least twice. I cannot prove it, but I
get the idea she lived with him for a period of time.
So, if she knows she had twins, why did she send only one away? On more
than one occasion, the explanation was oto protect him from Faisono. Why didnAt Cassius need the same protection
Maybe she knows, but Faison lied and told her Cassius died, to prevent her from taking him away.
Under any set of explanations, NathanAs resurrection is magical thinking. That she believed in NathanAs reanimation instead of flashing back to the twin and a possible Faison lieasuggests she is thinking like a mom more
than a scientist.
marika wrote in <YoQJR.441744$JCM5.119551@fx04.iad>:
Kaitlin <above.stairs@bobbie's.diner.INVALID> wrote:
<snip>
How can Liesl Obrecht not know that Nathan had a twin? *Does* she know,
or will they invent some cockamamie tale to explain why she doesn't?
I am making assumption with this response.
Liesl was intimate with Faison at least twice. I cannot prove it, but I
get the idea she lived with him for a period of time.
They were married.
So, if she knows she had twins, why did she send only one away? On more
than one occasion, the explanation was -oto protect him from Faison-o. Why >> didn-At Cassius need the same protection
She didn't send Nathan away, she gave him to her sister Madeline, not to protect him from Cesar Faison, but so she could be free to traipse
around the world with Cesar Faison. Cassius didn't exist when Liesl left Nathan with Madeline. Now that they've made up a twin, they're going to
have to explain him somehow. My guess is that it'll be something dumb
like Cesar took the second baby and hypnotized Liesl to make her forget
there was more than one. Or maybe she knew she was pregnant with twins,
but Cesar slipped her a mickey and stole one of the fetuses from her
womb, then told her she had miscarried it. Or Fake Nathan, aka Cassius,
is really Faison pretending to be Nathan pretending to be Cassius, who
never existed in the first place.
Maybe she knows, but Faison lied and told her Cassius died, to prevent her >> from taking him away.
Under any set of explanations, Nathan-As resurrection is magical thinking. >> That she believed in Nathan-As reanimation instead of flashing back to the >> twin and a possible Faison lie-asuggests she is thinking like a mom more
than a scientist.
It's magical thinking alright, but the entire town is guilty of it, not
only Obrecht. Everyone just accepted with little question the
resurrection of someone who had been shot in the chest, died, buried,
then had returned to life with no sign of a gunshot wound. I dunno,
sounds really fishy to me.
Kaitlin <above.stairs@bobbie's.diner.INVALID> wrote:
marika wrote in <YoQJR.441744$JCM5.119551@fx04.iad>:
Kaitlin <above.stairs@bobbie's.diner.INVALID> wrote:
But what if she is part of the grand scheme?
What if AnnaAs imprisonment and hospitalization are part of some Liesl revenge scheme.
There was one point when Anna was detained, where a person disguised as
Liesl administered her blood cancer drugs.
One is initially inclined to dismiss Liesl as a conspirator. I.e., why wouldnAt Liesl just do it in person if she were part of the conspiracy?
Red herring?
Under any set of explanations, Nathan?s resurrection is magical thinking. >>> That she believed in Nathan?s reanimation instead of flashing back to the >>> twin and a possible Faison lie?suggests she is thinking like a mom more
than a scientist.
It's magical thinking alright, but the entire town is guilty of it, not
only Obrecht. Everyone just accepted with little question the
resurrection of someone who had been shot in the chest, died, buried,
then had returned to life with no sign of a gunshot wound. I dunno,
sounds really fishy to me.
If Obrecht is in on it, her identification as his mother might have been
the crux of the con.
Do you mean that everyone else who believed the resurrection lie had
done so because Obrecht had--if his mother said it's Nathan, then it
must be Nathan--that sort of thing?
I doubt that, for the reason you gave above. Why would they cause Anna
to hallucinate Obrecht if Obrecht were in on the plot and could play
herself?
<snip>
A thought. The real Liesl needed deniability. Liesl was at the conference at the time Anna alleges Liesl administered treatment.
This helps improve the psychotic break diagnosis warranting the restrictive hospitalization.
marika wrote in <SN5KR.1681322$4wI6.659018@fx24.iad>:
A thought. The real Liesl needed deniability. Liesl was at the conference >> at the time Anna alleges Liesl administered treatment.
This helps improve the psychotic break diagnosis warranting the restrictive >> hospitalization.
That is true, but the only doctors attending Anna in France at the
facility where she's been parked are probably in Cullum's pocket, just
as Drew's caregivers are in Sidwell's. No need for anyone to provide additional evidence to back up Anna's diagnosis when Cullum's bought
doctors can just say that Anna had a psychotic break and everyone else--Anna's family, friends, and even her own doctor (Kevin, apparently)--has to take their word for it because it's the only word
they have.
Anna's family and friends have been told she has to stay in France to
answer charges for assaulting a gendarme. Someone--Val, no doubt--will
rescue Anna and remove her from Cullum's control, then she will come to
her senses and join the crusade against the evil doers.
I'd say the simplest explanation regarding Liesl's knowledge (or lack of knowledge) of Cassius's existence is that she's always known that Nathan
had an inexplicably never before mentioned twin and is in on the
conspiracy to pass Cassius off as Nathan. Either voluntary participation
or she's being coerced by Cullum threatening Brit could fit what we know
so far. Liesl certainly has been shown to be willing to take extreme measures to protect her children.
However, I'm still guessing it will not be the simple path that is
chosen by the writers. I'm betting Liesl is somehow unaware that Cassius
is not Nathan. And somehow Faison stole Cassius at birth and told Liesl Cassius had died, as incredibly far-fetched as that sounds. Faison then somehow raised Cassius clandestinely, prepping Cassius to be one of
Faison's secret weapons.
The whole
Cullum/Sidwell/Brit/Jason/Anna/Cassius etc. hidden lab story-line really
is one of the most annoyingly convoluted plots ever.
As far as Anna's story goes, I like the idea of Valentin mounting a
rescue mission. I seem to recall Valentin expressing skepticism that
Anna's mental breakdown was genuinely as described by the French authorities.
I'm willingly suspending disbelief about the residents of Port Charles
so easily accepting Cassius being Nathan inexplicably back from the
dead. There's been a long list of characters over the years who have returned to life after being very much dead. Brit is the most recent,
and without any good explanation about how that is possible, if I recall correctly. In the world of Port Charles it's just not that rare.
However, given the obvious discrepancies in Cassius's behavior vs.
Nathan's, there really should be growing suspicion.
SteveR wrote in <10tifu8$27nn4$1@dont-email.me>:
I'm willingly suspending disbelief about the residents of Port Charles
so easily accepting Cassius being Nathan inexplicably back from the
dead. There's been a long list of characters over the years who have
returned to life after being very much dead. Brit is the most recent,
and without any good explanation about how that is possible, if I recall
correctly. In the world of Port Charles it's just not that rare.
However, given the obvious discrepancies in Cassius's behavior vs.
Nathan's, there really should be growing suspicion.
Yes, but aside from the obvious personality/behavior differences,
suspicions should have sprouted on day one of Nathan's return. The lack
of evidence of a gunshot wound, and the inability to explain where he
has been for the past seven years were two enormous red flags that
should have alerted anyone with even one eye and half a brain.
There have been several resurrections in the past, and all were accepted without much question. But had any of those characters been shot or
stabbed or mortally wounded in some way that would have left scarring? Leaving aside that Nathan appeared to have been shot in the heart, there should have been evidence of a point blank gunshot wound on his chest,
as well as evidence of internal wounding. And didn't all of the
previously resurrected have an explanation for what had happened to
them--why it was that they had only *seemed* to have died but hadn't actually? Nathan claims to have no memory of the intervening years
elapsed since his shooting. And yet, everyone just accepted that he had
risen from the grave, unblemished and unexplained. Even JC offered scars
as proof of identity after rising from the grave, but Nathan West gets a
free pass? I'm not religious, but still...that hardly seems right.
On 5/8/2026 3:40 PM, Kaitlin wrote:
SteveR wrote in <10tifu8$27nn4$1@dont-email.me>:
<big snip>
I'm willingly suspending disbelief about the residents of Port Charles
so easily accepting Cassius being Nathan inexplicably back from the
dead. There's been a long list of characters over the years who have
returned to life after being very much dead. Brit is the most recent,
and without any good explanation about how that is possible, if I recall >>> correctly. In the world of Port Charles it's just not that rare.
However, given the obvious discrepancies in Cassius's behavior vs.
Nathan's, there really should be growing suspicion.
Yes, but aside from the obvious personality/behavior differences,
suspicions should have sprouted on day one of Nathan's return. The lack
of evidence of a gunshot wound, and the inability to explain where he
has been for the past seven years were two enormous red flags that
should have alerted anyone with even one eye and half a brain.
There have been several resurrections in the past, and all were accepted
without much question. But had any of those characters been shot or
stabbed or mortally wounded in some way that would have left scarring?
Leaving aside that Nathan appeared to have been shot in the heart, there
should have been evidence of a point blank gunshot wound on his chest,
as well as evidence of internal wounding. And didn't all of the
previously resurrected have an explanation for what had happened to
them--why it was that they had only *seemed* to have died but hadn't
actually? Nathan claims to have no memory of the intervening years
elapsed since his shooting. And yet, everyone just accepted that he had
risen from the grave, unblemished and unexplained. Even JC offered scars
as proof of identity after rising from the grave, but Nathan West gets a
free pass? I'm not religious, but still...that hardly seems right.
If I recall correctly, Liz's son (I believe it was Jake) was killed by a
car driven by Luke Spencer, and his organs harvested for donation. He
was then buried. When he miraculously returned, the explanation was that Helena had somehow spirited him away and brainwashed him to release the Chimera Toxin. No explanation was ever given as to how Jake survived the accident, whose organs were harvested, or who was buried in the grave.
Or how Helena would even have known Jake was going to be hit by the car
and be prepared with the plan to carry him off.
Similarly, Britt was declared dead from the toxin Heather used on the
hook she was running around stabbing people with. Exactly how that resurrection was carried out was also never really explained. I believe
the explanation was that Britt was not "really" dead, despite that
poison having killed everyone else Heather stabbed with the poison hook.
In both cases, the residents of Port Charles readily accepted the return
of the supposedly very dead characters without much question.
SteveR wrote in <10tifu8$27nn4$1@dont-email.me>:
I'm willingly suspending disbelief about the residents of Port Charles
so easily accepting Cassius being Nathan inexplicably back from the
dead. There's been a long list of characters over the years who have
returned to life after being very much dead. Brit is the most recent,
and without any good explanation about how that is possible, if I recall
correctly. In the world of Port Charles it's just not that rare.
However, given the obvious discrepancies in Cassius's behavior vs.
Nathan's, there really should be growing suspicion.
Yes, but aside from the obvious personality/behavior differences,
suspicions should have sprouted on day one of Nathan's return. The lack
of evidence of a gunshot wound, and the inability to explain where he
has been for the past seven years were two enormous red flags that
should have alerted anyone with even one eye and half a brain.
There have been several resurrections in the past, and all were accepted without much question. But had any of those characters been shot or
stabbed or mortally wounded in some way that would have left scarring? Leaving aside that Nathan appeared to have been shot in the heart, there should have been evidence of a point blank gunshot wound on his chest,
as well as evidence of internal wounding. And didn't all of the
previously resurrected have an explanation for what had happened to
them--why it was that they had only *seemed* to have died but hadn't actually? Nathan claims to have no memory of the intervening years
elapsed since his shooting. And yet, everyone just accepted that he had
risen from the grave, unblemished and unexplained. Even JC offered scars
as proof of identity after rising from the grave, but Nathan West gets a
free pass? I'm not religious, but still...that hardly seems right.
On 5/8/2026 3:40 PM, Kaitlin wrote:
SteveR wrote in <10tifu8$27nn4$1@dont-email.me>:
I'm willingly suspending disbelief about the residents of Port Charles
so easily accepting Cassius being Nathan inexplicably back from the
dead. There's been a long list of characters over the years who have
returned to life after being very much dead. Brit is the most recent,
and without any good explanation about how that is possible, if I recall >>> correctly. In the world of Port Charles it's just not that rare.
However, given the obvious discrepancies in Cassius's behavior vs.
Nathan's, there really should be growing suspicion.
Yes, but aside from the obvious personality/behavior differences,
suspicions should have sprouted on day one of Nathan's return. The lack
of evidence of a gunshot wound, and the inability to explain where he
has been for the past seven years were two enormous red flags that
should have alerted anyone with even one eye and half a brain.
There have been several resurrections in the past, and all were accepted
without much question. But had any of those characters been shot or
stabbed or mortally wounded in some way that would have left scarring?
Leaving aside that Nathan appeared to have been shot in the heart, there
should have been evidence of a point blank gunshot wound on his chest,
as well as evidence of internal wounding. And didn't all of the
previously resurrected have an explanation for what had happened to
them--why it was that they had only *seemed* to have died but hadn't
actually? Nathan claims to have no memory of the intervening years
elapsed since his shooting. And yet, everyone just accepted that he had
risen from the grave, unblemished and unexplained. Even JC offered scars
as proof of identity after rising from the grave, but Nathan West gets a
free pass? I'm not religious, but still...that hardly seems right.
If I recall correctly, Liz's son (I believe it was Jake) was killed by a
car driven by Luke Spencer, and his organs harvested for donation. He
was then buried. When he miraculously returned, the explanation was that Helena had somehow spirited him away and brainwashed him to release the Chimera Toxin. No explanation was ever given as to how Jake survived the accident, whose organs were harvested, or who was buried in the grave.
Or how Helena would even have known Jake was going to be hit by the car
and be prepared with the plan to carry him off.
Similarly, Britt was declared dead from the toxin Heather used on the
hook she was running around stabbing people with. Exactly how that resurrection was carried out was also never really explained. I believe
the explanation was that Britt was not "really" dead, despite that
poison having killed everyone else Heather stabbed with the poison hook.
In both cases, the residents of Port Charles readily accepted the return
of the supposedly very dead characters without much question.
As far as Britt, I may have inserted my own explanation or heard what I wanted to hear. I thought Britt said that the onicked by the hooko story
was a fabrication. I thought she said her handlers helped her fake the
wound and death. The handlers are now revealed to be Cullum, Sidwell and Cassius. At the least. Could be more..
Three guys who certainly had the wherewithal to fake the death.
I quieted my skepticism by recalling that quite a bit of time passed
between the fight with Heather on the dock, until that birthday Britt gave herself. She took longer to kick than the other victims, who died almost instantaneously on getting hooked.
At least, it seemed that way to me.
marika wrote in <0PQLR.1211985$Zve6.791542@fx18.iad>:
<snip>
As far as Britt, I may have inserted my own explanation or heard what I
wanted to hear. I thought Britt said that the -onicked by the hook-o story >> was a fabrication. I thought she said her handlers helped her fake the
wound and death. The handlers are now revealed to be Cullum, Sidwell and
Cassius. At the least. Could be more..
Three guys who certainly had the wherewithal to fake the death.
I quieted my skepticism by recalling that quite a bit of time passed
between the fight with Heather on the dock, until that birthday Britt gave >> herself. She took longer to kick than the other victims, who died almost
instantaneously on getting hooked.
At least, it seemed that way to me.
Without exception, every time they've brought a deceased character back
to life, confusion reigns. The original story was that Britt was
scratched or nicked with the hook, which is why its effects didn't kick
in right away, and didn't actually result in her death when they finally
did. She faked her death and took off for Croatia to spare her family
and friends the pain of having to watch her die of a wasting disease.
I haven't heard Britt say that Sidwell or Cullum or Pascal had anything
to do with faking her death, but it's possible that the writers changed
the story after involving her with Sidwell and Cullum, and I missed
Britt talking about it. Sometimes they do rewrite their rewrites. Just
to confuse things further, you know.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 05:28:07 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
921 files (14,318M bytes) |
| Messages: | 264,603 |